Reflections on 9-11
PETER'S NEW YORK, January 3, 2008--I want to honestly mention a
few thoughts I had on the day 9-11 occurred. Some of these I am not
particularly proud of, but because they were my instinctual reactions,
I believe they have value in shedding light on some of the important
events of that day.
My first reaction, of course, was sort of a la Ron Paul. "It's about time,"
I thought. "What did we expect?" American foreign policy had been so
exploitative, so provocative, in fact, that it was only a matter of
time before "blowback" occurred. That was the spontaneous reaction of
many I spoke to around the time of 9-11, but such a reaction was
pre-empted by government statements that the terrorists attacked us
"because they hate our freedoms," or some such rot.
When the Trade Center towers suddenly crumbled into a pile of rubble,
virtually disappearing from the skyline, I thought, "What, they're
gone?" It was truly a surprise and a shock.
Not only were the collapses unexpected, but they should never have
occurred, nor should anyone have expected them to. No matter how
damaging the collisions of two airliners with the respective towers of
the World Trade Center may have been, that alone should have never
caused the towers' collapse.
Another reaction I had was to blame firemen for storming up the towers
and blocking others from coming down the stairs. Fact is, there was no
reason for the firemen to expect that the towers would fall down, nor
was there any apparent reason why they should have fallen down. Their
mission was two-fold: to help in evacuation and to put the fires out.
The collapse of the towers did NOT occur because of the impacts of the
planes, which were not sufficient to bring them down the way they
fell--crumbling into pile of dust and debris. The fire department
behaved just as they should have. They are without blame, regardless of
how their communications equipment worked or didn't. They truly were
heroes, and not the misguided bunglers I thought they were at the time.
I hope that this conveys the deep heartfelt respect I now have for
these men and women and what they did on 9-11.
Later I thought, not being a fan of the world trade center anyway,
"What a discovery! All we have to do to get rid of ulgy unwanted sky
scrapers is to fly an airplane into them, and, lo and behold, they will
crumble into a pile of rubble!" No, Peter. That is not what will happen
when a plane flies into a skyscraper. That is what controlled
demolitions are for. A way of collapsing buildings has already been
discovered. Planes flying into buildings will not do that.
One way of thinking about the crumbling of the world trade centers, or
of determining what could have caused such a collapse, is to think in
terms of what one would have to do to make a building that would
duplicate the 9-11 event. A comparison might be made of the towers and
a model made of toy wooden blocks. Certainly such a construction of
blocks might come tumbling down the way the Trade Towers did. Why?
Because there is nothing holding the blocks together. There is no
binding force between the blocks. Thus, if one wanted the World Trade
Center towers to come down, one would just sever the beams in such a
way that they would become like our model made of blocks: shortened
beams with no binding force between them. In the case of the World
Trade Center towers, this would require severing or cutting the beams
in short pieces all at once. This would not have occurred due to a
collision of a plane with the world trade center towers. Whatever the
condition of the building at the site of impact, the rest of the
building was still constructed in such a way that the beams retained
their binding force with one another. Thus, a collapse such as would
have occurred if the building were made of toy blocks, would not be
possible. One must conclude that somehow, the beams must have been
severed en masse in order to
resemble the collapse of a building composed of toy wooden blocks not
bound to one another.
In a controlled demolition, explosive charges are placed on building
beams in such a way as to sever them in a timed succession that will
bring the entire building down all at once. Only such a procedure can
explain for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Who would
have done such a thing? Well, the fellow who collected insurance on the
buildings would be a prime suspect, as would anyone else who
appreciably benefited from their destruction. Who else benefited?
Policymakers who used the 9-11 incidents as reasons to retool America's
security regime, in a manner that could also be used to stifle dissent
and resistance by disarming it through quasi-legal "security" laws such
as the Patriot Act, etc. One need only look to those who sponsored such
legislation to find some of the other culprits.
In fact, it should not be difficult to find those who perpetrated the
event. They will have left an obvious trail to those willing to wake up
to the reality of what actually happened. But others will not believe
even their own eyes. Why would Dick Cheney say that America will never
be the same after the events of 9-11? What was in it for him? Who is he
to make such a declaration? And the bogus list of terrorist "suspects"
that appeared so soon after the events of 9-11. How did the government
come up with such a list? And if the government knew, does it not beg
the question of why they were not able to stop it? No wonder many are
questioning the government's version of what happened on 9-11 and
proposing theories of their own. Why, then, are such questioners being
demonized and characterized as terrorists themselves? Think about it.
For the same reason that Lynne Stewart was taken to court and
criminalized for defending the blind shiek. Attack the people who might
have a key to government malfeasance, as if they were criminals
themselves. But don't you think the same strategies are getting a
little old? Like, people might catch on?
BACK TO HOME PAGE